The actual link between the firm and the 'violent computer game' Counter Strike seems very tenuous at best. The Mail explains that the company:

manage[s] semi-professional teams in the growing ‘e-sport’ world...The company has run a team playing the Counter-Strike combat game.

So it's not as if they designed or published the game, but simply run a team playing it (along with many other games, no doubt). Or did. The statement from company secretary Gabriel Moraes says:

‘Magnitude has never been involved with games containing any kind of street violence. We had one game involving soldiers in military combat but it had a rating of 18-plus and was a team game. We stopped involvement with that game some months ago.’

As the Blairs only became directors in February, it's likely there was only a few months overlap.

And then the two journalists who wrote the story, Brendan Carlin and Simon McGee, get to their main point:

There have been claims that perpetrators of massacres in the US and Germany have been fans of the game.

Finally, the broader cultural context in which young people live – the music they listen to, the films they watch, the video games and sports they play – are important in articulating values, defining what is ‘cool’ and fashionable and legitimising social norms.

Nevertheless, the impact that these cultural factors have on encouraging violence, desensitizing empathy and legitimising anti-social behaviour is contested.

Among the questions communities feel the need to address is why these factors impact with such dire consequences on some young people while others from the same background and subject to these same cultural influences have different aspirations and choose a lifestyle that does not reinforce their social exclusion.

That is the only section of the whole 121-page report which mentions video games - and appears on page 76. And it says any link is 'contested'. It is not a damning conclusion as the Mail tries to suggest.

Saturday, 29 August 2009

It has always been a bit of a source of wonder how Amanda Platell can be considered an expert on anything given her claim to fame is her incredibly unsuccessful work as press secretary for William Hague.

Her latest outburst is related to this week's population figures. As if trying to be an offensive and inaccurate in as little time as possible, her third sentence reads:

Sadly, though, it is not the indigenous middle-class, hard-working, tax-paying population that's exploding.

She might as well have said 'we're being over-run by chavs and foreigners on benefits' and be done with it.

She blames the benefit system, suggesting:

it's not so much a baby boom we're experiencing as a benefits boom. Middle Britain, stand ready to empty your wallets.

Friday, 28 August 2009

1. It was entirely predictable that the one element of the stats that was in the favour of the anti-immigration lobby - the births to migrant mothers - would be the focus of the tabloid coverage. That the Express and Mail chose to use much the same headline on their front pages shows how little they otherwise had to cheer about.

There is the old problem of who these papers consider 'migrants', as many may well have become British citizens. As the Mail admits deep in its story:

Some of these [babies], however, will be of British descent.

But is Migrant Baby Boom even accurate? Well not entirely. Yes a quarter of all births were to migrant mothers. But the percentage increase was only 0.9% from 2007 (23.2%) to 2008 (24.1%). Does an increase of less than one percent make it a 'boom'?

And is Migrant Baby Boom even news? After all, both the Express and the Mail were telling us in May how 1 in 4 births were to migrant mothers.

3. The Express phone poll of the day is: Has Labour's migration policy wrecked Britain?

Vile.

4. The Express editorial claims immigration 'weakens' and 'threatens' British society, and raises the spectre of 'militant Islamism', just so the readers know immigration is bad, damaging and dangerous.

Despite a fall in immigration, and the lowest net immigration for five years, they claim the government is 'deluded' for claiming immigration is under control.

extinguishing of Britain and British identity under a tsunami of immigration.

5. The Express is being more than a little dishonest in its story Exodus of Britons growing. The first line claims 400,000 left Britain - the website version even illustrated by a wholesome white family with three children. Allied with the headline the message of 'white flight' is clear. But it is also wrong.

For one thing of the 395,000 who left the UK in 2008, 237,000 were foreigners returning home, and 158,000 were British citizens. Therefore Britons are in a minority of those leaving.

Regular readers will know that Desmond is a liar and a bully and a totally inappropriate person to be running newspapers. And his rarely rise above nasty, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-Islam, Britain-isn't-Britain-any-more bullshit.

As noted before, the Express is made up of a lotadvertising. And lately even its editorial has been advertising. How can fewer journalists change that? Just looking at today's edition and on a rough count, 34 and a half pages (out of 88) are advertising.

That's 39%. Add to that all the pictures and already it is staggeringly lacking in journalist-written content.

And that will only get worse. Because Desmond has no concern for journalism. All he has a concern for is making money and treating minorities like crap.

In our article “Tennis legend Martina and the Russian beauty” on 25 August, we reported that that Martina Navratilova and Julia Lemigova were believed to be engaged after being photographed on holiday in St Tropez, each wearing rings on their left hands.

There is no truth in this.

The pair are not engaged and have not exchanged rings.

We apologise to Ms Navratilova and Ms Lemigova for our error and embarrassment we may have caused.

A lesbian former soldier awarded nearly £190,000 after being sexually harassed by a male sergeant said she was 'disgusted' at the compensation given to injured servicemen.

The phrasing of both has been very carefully chosen to imply the woman in question thinks she deserves her compensation and injured soldiers do not. And she's a lesbian, so the messageboard torch-and-pitchfork crew will be out in force.

But what she actually said was:

'I'm embarrassed the MoD have only given them such a low sum. To be honest, I'm disgusted in the MoD more than anything.'

So it's a 'disgust' that those injured soldiers have not got more money. Which begs the question - why is that a story at all? Unless you want to report it in a way that hints at something else...

The crime in question was in fact carried about by three perpetrators (plus a getaway driver) - one wearing a burkha and two who weren't, but had their face covered in other ways. And yet the burkha is the sole focus of the story. Why would that be...?

Why would this article be on the front page for three days running? Because the Mail is trying its very best to make it seem that people in burkhas can not be trusted.

One of the comments reads:

You know when these burqas will get banned in this country? When hundreds of people have died from a bomb attack (i.e. when it's TOO LATE). Only then will the goverment act. Stolen jewels are not nearly enough to trigger a reaction from them. Bravo indeed, Great Britain.- P, London UK, 26/8/2009 11:53

So there you have it - burkhas = terrorists.

The idea that robbers cover their faces while committing a crime seems to be big news to the Mail. Are they going to write inflammatory articles about balaclavas and stockings, and how they have no place in Britain? Should we also ban clown's outfits so nobody copies Bill Murray's heist in Quick Change?

The results are not pretty - indeed, the report shows that only rapid use of overwhelming military force would save humanity from extinction - but the authors point out that, even though zombies may be imaginary, the findings may be pertinent to the spread of some devastating diseases that are all too real.

But surely researching actual 'devastating diseases' and the way they have actually spread would be more useful than researching a made up disease. Why not look at the real spread of swine or avian flu rather than basing claims on complete hypotheticals which will never, ever happen? Or will it? Hanlon says:

one soon forgets that zombies, so far, exist only in the imagination.

'So far'? How much scientific knowledge do you need to be the Mail's science editor?

Mike's comment reveals a mindset where immigrants are soulless, violent creatures intent on feeding off, and destroying, the British people. Among Mail readers, Mike isn't alone. Six of the 14 comments left so far think it would be equally hilarious to call the Labour (sorry, 'Liebour') government 'zombies':

The Liebour party conference is starting soon, that will prove Zombies do exist. Liebour voters are Zombies as well.- Martin, Ashford, 25/8/2009 23:31 1:53

We already have a plague of the undead, they're called the Labour Government!!!!- Arthur Gruntfuttock, Moscow, 26/8/2009

We already have them here in the UK........650 currently reside in the Houses of Parliament. Their leader is to be found relentlessly feasting on the nations wealth in No10 Downing street.- Ordinary Bloke., Margate, Kent., 26/8/2009

the hilarity, the sheer naked insight of Daily Mail comment making types is enough to fill you with wonder and mirth. Their masterful command of the English language combines with their rapier sharp wit to produce an effect truly dazzling.

Loathe as I am to fan the flames of the tedious Katie Price and Peter Andre saga, today's Daily Star front page is another of their classic bits of fiction.

Today they claimed Jordan was pregnant. She says she isn't. The story has already been removed from their website - that's how crap it was - but they had a 'friend' of Jordan saying she had taken three tests and was definitely pregnant.

Eventhough the Star has deleted it, you can read the details - for now - at the Telegraph. The Telegraph. What the hell are they doing reporting sleb tat like this?

It was fairly easy to see that the story was not true from one of the Star's bits of evidence. They used this pic and said that Jordan's new lover was stroking her tummy:

Now the people who produce the Star may not be the most intelligent people around, but if they think that shows someone stroking a tummy, they are dumber than we suspected.

Monday, 24 August 2009

It has often been said that the people who leave comments on the Daily Mail website don't read past the headline and first few lines before giving us all the benefit of their ignorant views. Usually the truth is buried towards the end of the article, when they have given up reading and started bashing out their bilious responses.

A lorry carrying supplies to a Vietnamese restaurant in Birmingham had 13 illegal migrants on board when it was stopped in France.

Good. So the border police have stopped some illegal immigrants getting to the UK. Surely cause for the messageboard people to cheer? Well, no, because some of them haven't even read that first line properly:

Send them back this is happening every day and this government cannot handle it.- D.Platten, Hull, 24/8/2009 14:55

I presume then that, within 2 or 3 weeks, the government will be giving them all council houses, 4-500 pounds per week, a free car and of course permanent residence.- Mark Rees, San Francisco (Ex Pat), 24/8/2009 14:08

Check up in 6 months to see how many of them area still here.- tony, sheffield, 24/8/2009 13:59

Why are they still in this country? They should have been shipped straight back too the safe country they had left, probably France- s'me again Shane, Beverley East Yorkshire, 24/8/2009 13:45

Let me know if these people are deported in the next ten years.- Dab, Cambs England, 24/8/2009 13:16

No doubt they will be allowed to stay , given a house and every benefit going.- Jax, England., 24/8/2009 12:42

So, your starter for ten: which bit of 'stopped in France' do these idiots not understand?

Needless to say these comments are all voted positive, but surely it brings into question once again how the Mail moderators are letting through such stupid comments. They have also published a few pointing out their error, but their policy on what they allow (comments that tow the line, even when they're completely factually wrong) and what they don't (comments pointing out errors and lies) seems the wrong way round entirely.

On July 5, 2009 we reported that David Gest had been banned from attending Michael Jackson's memorial service by Michael's mother as a "hanger-on" who had not spoken to her son for 10 years. Our article was incorrect.

In fact Mr Gest had been friends with Michael Jackson for over 40 years, the two had remained close and he had been personally invited to the memorial service by Mrs Jackson.

We apologise to Mr Gest for our error and any distress or embarrassment it may have caused.

The messageboard idiots have reacted in an entirely predictable way, many threatening, Private Eye-style, to close their accounts because of this.

There is one problem with all their complaints, which the Mail admits half way through the story:

The Islamic account is available to all customers at Lloyds TSB.

Oh. As usual the spokesman from Lloyds TSB is relegated to near the end of the article. They say:

'All of our Islamic accounts comply with Islamic law and are available to anyone regardless of background or faith.

'These accounts are structured differently to our traditional accounts and are designed to help prevent a customer slipping into the red. A comparison with the overdraft charging structure on other accounts is meaningless.'

Available to anyone, you say? That's weird, because the way the Mail presented the story it was as if them Muslims were getting a special deal that wasn't available to anyone else.

And the spokesman is also correct about charge comparisons being meaningless. The Islamic accounts do not receive interest payments (in accordance with Shariah law) so surely it is only fair that the money saved from that is passed on in other ways? They also do not have an overdraft facility.

But there is another problem with the Mail story, probably the crucial one. The Islamic account can not have a planned overdraft facility, because it is not in line with Shariah Law. If they go overdrawn, it is called an unplanned overdraft, and the bank says:

In any case, the Mail has deliberately whacked up the overdraft figures to £200 which only applies if someone goes over £100 overdrawn, at which point they will be charged £20 per day for maximum of ten days. But there is a sliding scale of fees, depending on how overdrawn the account is and for how long. They have just picked the biggest number to make it sound a lot worse than it actually is.

Friday, 21 August 2009

Richard Littlejohn's latest column includes a 'you couldn't make it up' about a paedophile on Viagra; a story about 'stupid' policemen - in which brings up transsexuals, again; a pop at global warming and carbon credits; an attack on Mark Oaten, so he can talk about homosexual acts; a use of 'Call Me Dave' (laugh? I nearly did) and finally he insults a government minister over the Dannatt affair. Brilliant.

But why does he get paid so much for writing stuff which Mail readers have already read?

So he doesn't do anything for his columns except read - and then re-heat - Mail stories from a day or two before. And, of course, he adds in a few of his special 'facts', 'hilarious' catchphrases and casual racism.

It's hard to believe that burkinis are so widely used that they should be taken as seriously as Delingpole seems to do. But any anti-Islam rhetoric is lapped up by the Express and so we all get the 'benefit' of his views.

'Children of International Migrants in Europe' is a new study by researchers at Lancaster University. The results?

Watching soaps, reading tabloids and turned off by politics – the children of International Migrants in Britain show a high degree of cultural assimilation compared to their European Neighbours

And:

Powerful evidence of cultural assimilation. Young Pakistanis and Indians in Britain preferred TV shows like EastEnders and Coronation Street. Most read the Sun and the Mirror.

There was no evidence of political radicalism. Rather, there was a general indifference to politics amongst all groups.

You may have missed hearing about this study because, it appears, the Mail is only the newspaper that bothered to mention it. And eventhough it did bother, it didn't assign a proper journalist to cover the story (Daily Mail Reporter takes the byline). And then the article is peppered with the word 'claim' so it appears that the Mail doesn't quite trust the results.

The latest is firmly in the 'jobs scare' category, trying to pretend that there is a big problem with migrants taking jobs from British workers. Except the two sets of numbers she is using can't possibly compared in a sensible way, as Jamie proves.

And even in the way she has presented the figures, they show the situation isn't half as bad as the Mail wants it to be. They have put the figures in a little table, showing each area of the country - but of the 33 towns they give figures for, only 8 of them show more migrant workers than British ones.

Three of those eight are in London, but in the text Reid admits the figures for London as a whole are in the Brits' favour.

But that is all only relevant if you accept the pointless statistical analysis that the article indulges in.

But it shouldn't be accepted. Because it is, clearly, bollocks.

It's worth adding that on two occasions Reid does admit something that the Mail quite possibly has never admitted before:

While a NINO can be used to access social benefits, most newcomers from abroad are not eligible for these payouts and use the number only to seek work.

And:

A claimant is a person on job-seekers' allowance who is actively trying to find employment. Newly arrived foreigners cannot get this payout.

British Muslim fanatics sparked fresh fury last night by praising Taliban “heroes” for sending our troops back from Afghanistan in body bags.

Of course, any time the word 'fury' turns up in a story, it immediately means they've phoned up some of their favourite quote whores and got some suitable 'outraged' quotes (see TaxPayers Alliance, Campaign for Political Correctness, Philip Davies MP).

There are many problems with this story, and the way it has been presented.

Let's be blunt - running stories based on a few comments from a forum is pathetic. If you look hard enough you could find someone saying anything you want on a forum somewhere. It really doesn't mean anything.

The Express then says:

Last night there were calls by senior politicians for the Home Office to crack down on the hate-filled rants that will distress even further the relatives of troops who gave their lives fighting the Taliban.

This is a ridiculous statement. If these 'hate-filled rants' are so distressing, why are the Express and Star going to the trouble of reprinting them? It's more than likely that the families of soldiers aren't reading the Islamic Awakening website (or have even heard of it).

But the Star and the Express sell 1.6m copies a day. So who is really causing the distress?

Ministers in charge of the campaign have been both incompetent and deceitful. Not only have they systematically failed to provide sufficient resources for the fight but they have also lied to the public on an epic scale...

We should bring home all our services personnel immediately.

Which sounds very similar to the 'vile' message of the 'fanatic' Isma'eel.

Oops.

Although McKinstry often does write hate-filled rants against Muslims and immigrants, the Express thinks those are acceptable. So why is the Express and McKinstry allowed their free speech so say what they want, but other people - namely Muslims - are not?

The Daily Quail has done a good job of research, highlighting the different reactions from Mail readers to people involved in litigation - when the person suing is white, they support them, when they ain't, they don't.

Regular reader Kit also wrote to highlight this Mac cartoon from the 19 August Mail:

"A gipsy encampment in your village? Appalling! Would anyone like some lucky heather, clothes pegs or their fortune told?"

Because councils behave as if they are run by Gypsies, see? Except they don't because if they did, councils would provide the legal sites they are meant to. And it indulges in the same Gypsy stereotypes that Littlejohn did a few columns ago. Except they forgot the tarmacing.

All four 'articles' have all been churned out by the same journalist - Alison Coleman. Although it would be easy to be cynical about her role in this, it's more likely that she has to write what she is told, or she won't have a job.

Tuesday, 18 August 2009

After last Friday's column, where he claimed to only report facts, a reader emailed Littlejohn asking where he got his 'fact' about most robberies being done by Eastern Europeans from. He didn't get a reply.

How strange then, that today's column is full of emails from readers who have all supported the points Littlejohn made last week, including on airport security, and on (yet again) the National Trans Police Association.

The sub-head on that bit of the article is 'Real cops neutered by trangender lobby', which is another unpleasant bit of prejudice. For one, why are trans cops not 'real' cops? It also completely fails to make clear why the existence of this group stops cops doing their jobs. And the use of the word 'neuter' is just juvenile.

His elf 'n'safety story of the day is about a Richmond housing association banning 'hanging baskets and window boxes'. One of the comments left was by Elizabeth in Richmond:

As a local resident, I could not remember seeing the hanging baskets story so I looked it up on the website of our local paper, from which I noted that it was published 18 months ago. If that's the most up to date health and safety story around, it looks like we haven't got much to worry about.

As for the rest, there are, of course, several references to homosexuality - a Littlejohn column wouldn't be complete without one. Several are in his main essay on Peter Mandelson, an essay about how the media are obsessed with covering everything said and done by, ummm, Peter Mandelson. Didn't he do the same with Michael Jackson? Not that you'd get the Mail putting non-news stories about Mandelson on its front page.

Oh.

Anyway, Mandelson is repeatedly called 'Screaming Lord Mandy'. Would a straight man ever be referred to as 'Screaming'? He adds in such tell tale words as 'flaunts' and refers to a 'fairy story'.

And then we have his 'fact' of the day, from the Mandelson article. Here's the quote:

He cosies up to Colonel Gaddafi's son in Corfu and the next thing you know the Lockerbie bomber is about to walk free.

Which may be true, but are the two events related? In case news hasn't reached Florida yet, the decision about the Lockerbie bombers release is made soley by the Justice Secretary of the Socttish Parliament, Kenny MacAskill. Moreover, the Scottish government is currently run the the Scottish National Party, not Labour. Does Littlejohn really think Mandelson is influencing them?

Because that means: there's no evidence to support that claim, but it's a claim we want to scare our readers with anyway.

So following the news that one man had apparently hidden under a Border Agency coach from Calais and then run off when it arrived in the UK, that means hundreds 'could have' come through the same way.

But they haven't.

The story goes on to say:

Since last month's incident, three more illegals have been caught trying to hide on the coach in France.

And when it was later parked in a 'secure' spot within Channel Tunnel land to deter stowaways, two more illegals were arrested breaking into the area to reach it.

So that's five others who have all been caught, and one who has got through and was seen. And in the world of the Mail - and their conveniently anonymous source who isn't even from the Border Agency but described as 'close to' it - that means hundreds 'could have'.

Saturday, 15 August 2009

The Express has plumbed many depths since Richard Desmond has been in charge, but today's front page must rank among its lowest points. Because, believe it or not, it has been inspired by yesterday's Richard Littlejohn column.

It's an interesting use of the word 'we'. Obviously the 50 members of the National Trans Police Association feel they do need it. Compare that with the, umm, 11 people who follow the Campaign Against Political Correctness on Twitter. So who is this 'we' they claim to speak for?

They say on their website that among the problems with political correctness is that tries to:

bully people into conforming with a certain point of view...It undermines personal responsibility and freedom.

But isn't the CAPC bullying people to conform to its point of view, and undermining personal freedom, by saying this group should not exist?

The Express reiterates the idea that the establishment of this group somehow stops them:

concentrating on fighting crime.

But as Jonathan pointed out yesterday, why is there no such article or outrage about the Christian Police Association? Or the Jewish Police Association?

And can anyone explain how the existence of any of these associations stops officers fighting crime?

The Express has now added some poisonous anti-trans sentiment to that spread by Littlejohn yesterday by putting on its front page a total non-story designed to do nothing but stir up animosity towards this minority group.

'He must have been doing 100mph. When he got out he couldn't walk straight.'

Brilliant. And then, because he was 'arrested on suspicion of drink driving':

the gay singer [was] described as "away with the fairies"

Fairies - ya know, cos he's gay. Hilarious.

And of what relevance is the fact he is 'gay'? If it was a heterosexual in a car crash, would they say 'the straight singer'? No, of course not. And they don't say it once - two sentences before that one they refer to

Gay George

Blimey. There's not a lot to this story. He was arrested but released without charge, so the 'drink-driving' claim probably isn't true. And no one was injured. So why is this front page news?

The Star has been telling its readers about the latest ABC circulation figures, which showed a (depressing) 20% increase year-on-year for the dismal rag. A daily dose of lies about Jordan, reality tv and BNP-style flagwaving, it's cheap and nasty. But it crows:

The dismal Mirror is facing relegation after losing a staggering 103,000 readers a day!

That’s a mammoth 7% drop in total circulation. And the setting Sun saw 12,000 ditch their side every single day in July. No other daily or weekend newspaper in Britain can compete with our meteoric rise...

Not only are we giving you everything bigger, better and brighter than our rubbish rivals – we’re doing it at a far better price.

Well yes, it's half the price of the other red tops (a price cut reflected in the increase in sales), although at 20p it is still 20p overpriced.

But it's hard to work out how this news makes the Star 'Britain's most successful newspaper', as it remains only the fourth biggest selling daily, far, far behind the Sun (3.1m), Mail (2.17m), Mirror (1.34m) with its 887,000 sales.

Going through their 'media coverage' section for the two week period from Wednesday 22 July - Wednesday 5 August, I did a quick tally of how often the TPA had been quoted in the main daily papers. The results:

So that's eight stories in the nationals every day (and that doesn't include the many, many local papers that quote them).

And the Mail and Express are using the TPA, on average, for two stories every day.

But it's even worse than that sometimes. For example, on 22 July, the Express had six stories quoting the TPA. The Mail used them six times in a day on 3 August, five times on 22 July. The Telegraph has also used it five times in one day (4 August).

It's a damning indictment of the abilities of journalists on these papers. As Barkham implies, it's not as if the TPA spokespeople come up with some sparkling piece of insight every time they are quoted.

'It is completely inappropriate for BBC senior executives to use expenses to pay for tax advice'.

And yet somehow, the TPA are on speed-dial for the Mail, Express and Telegraph. It's solely because their journalists are after an easy quote, with the least effort possible, and they know the media whores at the TPA will offer them the 'isn't this awful' knee-jerk response they want.

Which for the purpose of informed and balanced journalism, isn't really...umm...appropriate.

(Check out the Other TaxPayers Alliance who campaign for fairer taxes, try to hold the TPA to account over its secretive accounts, and also expose some of the problems with TPA research. They point out that despite the name, the TPA only represent 0.04% of UK taxpayers. And it has a TPA quote generator.)

Today, he's written about the National Trans Police Association (which includes his obligatory reference to homosexuality) and complained about how divisive they, and their Black, Pagan and Gay Police Association colleagues are, without, Jonathan points out, mentioning the Christian Police Association. Funny that.

He's also written about Travellers (twice in four days!) and claims he doesn't 'do' 'gippophobia', a term which surely is as - ahem - 'gippophobic' as the term 'pikey' he used on Tuesday.

He goes on to have a go at Muslims, immigration control and foreign criminials.

Stop me if you've heard it before.

But he includes three particularly startling statements:

1. 'I merely report the facts'.

Hmmm. The 'facts' as they have been reported in the Mail and fit your agenda, you mean? Remember this 'fact' from Tuesday:

£4.7million of Lottery money has been spent helping travellers to subvert the planning laws.

2. 'I only ever criticise people for what they DO, not what they are'.

No comment really, except he seems to think that what people are is a general indicator of what they do (Muslims = terrorists, gays = perverts and brainwashers of children, asylum seekers = scroungers).

3. 'Most of the robberies in this country have been carried out by Eastern European gangs'.

So there you have it. 'WE' clearly does not include Gypsies - or indeed, immigrants, it becomes clear later. This rant is written by Harry Phibbs and begins:

Gypsies have been handed millions from the Big Lottery Fund to help them subvert planning laws - money that is supposed to be for ‘good causes.’

It's tiresome to point out for a third time why this isn't the case, but it seems the Mail wants to keep repeating something until people believe it is true. He goes through some of the same Littlejohn cliches about Gypsies being 'filthy' and 'criminals'.

He goes through the usual suspects of what he deems unworthy causes, attack an award of £33,000 for the Gender Trust for, he says:

for transsexuals and people who are ‘uneasy about their sexuality’

Why is this a problem? Apart from the fact Phibbs and the Mail don't like anyone who isn't heterosexual? Just read the Gender Trust's 'Who we are':

The Trust is a listening ear, a caring support and an information centre for anyone with any question or problem concerning their gender identity, or whose loved one is struggling with gender identity issues. The Trust is also recognised as an authoritative centre for professional people who encounter gender identity related issues in the course of their work. In particular this group includes employers, human resource officers, health workers and information services.

How is that not a 'good cause'? He then turns his focus on immigration, attacking the

£340,000 to the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns - a group not concerned with assisting the welfare of asylum seekers but campaigning for the overthrow of Britain's asylum laws.

In fact, this is simply not true. As the name of the organisation suggests, they are concerned with the welfare of asylum seekers. From their website:

The Coalition lobbies to amend law and practice which leads to unjust or inhumane deportations, and assists in mounting campaigns against such legislation.

That is 'overthrowing asylum laws'?

And then Phibbs fibs again:

So we have had a Lottery Grant of £700,000 to the Student Action for Refugees which campaigned to hound out Professor David Coleman from Oxford University because of his links with the Migration Watch think tank.

Now while it is obvious that the Mail would take umbrage at anyone who might not like Migrationwatch, this statement is misleading. The grant was clearly not for STAR to campaign against David Coleman but was for other activities - as the Mail pointed out in 2007:

The funding is specifically to "raise awareness of refugee and asylum issues, campaign on behalf of refugees and offer practical support to refugees" and to support "local groups...to set up and implement practical projects for students to work with local refugee organisations and create links to their local communities".

While there was a petition circulated, it appears this was never submitted to the university. And one of the other concerns STAR had about Coleman was because of his involvement in the Galton Institute, which was formerly known as the Eugenics Society, and how that linked to his work with Migrationwatch. Coleman protested his innocence although referring to 'Continental excesses' may not have been the wisest choice of words when referring to what the Nazis were up to in the field of eugenics.

Coleman popped up again on 10 August with the latest press release and briefing paper from his friends at Migrationwatch, which was largely based on his work.

This is one of the strangest Migrationwatch efforts for a while because, although dated 10 August, it was not reported on until the 12th by the Express and Star and does not appear to have been picked up by the Mail at all.

Is this a first? Was the Migrationwatch paper really that hopeless that even the Mail and Sun ignored it? Well yes, it was.

Influential think tank MigrationWatch reckons we’ll be swamped by millions more foreigners in the coming years.

Numbers are set to soar, according to world population trends.

By 2050 an extra 17million people will be living here.

It will push our already overstretched public services to breaking point.

We cannot allow these huge numbers of immigrants to continue to swan in unchecked.

Our health, housing and council services are struggling to deal with those already here.

And with a fresh wave facing us from the developing world, they could collapse altogether.

It’s time for the government to cut the numbers coming in.

It’s time to close our borders.

Britain is full.

The problems with all that are so obvious, it's not worth pointing them out. But what is all this based on? Back to the Migrationwatch report, and more importantly the footnote at the end:

This paper is largely a precis of The shape of things to come: world population to 2050.The data have been updated. By Professor D.A. Coleman. A contribution to the Engelsberg Seminar 2005. Published by the Ax::son Johnson Foundation, Stockholm, 2007, in Empire and the Future World Order, pp. 209 230.

Right - so the figures are reheated from a few years ago?

In summary, the paper suggests that since a UN World Population Report for 2050 has shown a big increase in the population of countries where Britain currently receives lots of visa and asylum applications, there is going to be this huge increase in Britain's population, taking it to 80 million.At which point, one questions leaps out - if this UN Report data is used to claim as fact the population of other countries, why not just look up what it says the population of the UK will be in 2050 and be done with it?